Protestants: Sinner's Prayer-What must it say and does it assure Salvation?

[Daedelus76]

Baptism, however, is different. Faith is different. Why? Because they are not my actions. They are God’s .

Faith doesn’t save you, faith justifies you. And while I don’t necessarily think you can earn God’s grace, there are things one can do in life to make that grace fitting. I think monergism can be taken too far honestly.

If it were dependent upon us and our merit; upon us and our action, we would be completely hopeless.

I ageree, none of us deserve salvation in the strict sense. However, God is not only just, but also merciful, and both have a unity in God’s unchanging nature.

Whether or not we were to ‘hope’ in that case would be irrelevant, because original sin has so corrupted us that there is nothing we can do to make ourselves right with God.

This is why I don’t think I can be a Lutheran, I think I’m basicly a synergist, even while acknowledging there’s merit to the concept of “total depravity” and “bondage of the will”, sure. Monergism can easily lead to the absurdities.

If we could in fact merit grace, if we could in fact please God, then why did the Christ need to come into the world?

I think one pleases God by repenting, the Cross didn’t change that. What the Cross did was make God’s forgiveness concrete (an eternal atonement for sin, which is not exactly the same as Calvin’s take of a juridical “punishment”, represented at the Eucharist, through faith and the Mysteries), or it was a moral influence upon humanity- revealing something previously hidden about God, if you want to get vaguely “Scholastic” about this issue. The Orthodox talk about the atonement in a mystical way “He has trampled down Death by death and given life to those in the tombs”, “the flaming sword of Paradise has been mysterious extinguished by His blood”.

If you believe in the name of Christ and are baptized, you are saved! Do not despair, but rejoice!

I think justification is more a pastoral issue. The last century or two of Protestantism, almost exclusively among the “evangelicals”, has been a descent into narcissistic piety and arguments over how we know what we know about our own individual salvation.

 

[Nominefili]

I would suggest this as a better interpretation if you really want to use “aboslute assurance”… I have aboslute assurance that God will keep his word to us, that if we follow his prcepts we will receive his saving grace which is the only thing (not faith/works) which can justify us.

Can you be on board with that?

I can! Sorry I missed the context of what you guys were talking about before; I am really bad about jumping into the middle of conversations like that sometimes.

 

[Padrej]

This is probably the best written “sinner’s prayer” that I have seen written on a tract in that it speaks of not just doing this for a one time event.

Dear God, forgive me for my sins. Thank you for sending your Son Jesus Christ who died on the cross for my sins and rose from the dead to be my Lord. Today I repent of my sins and invite Jesus to be my personal savior. Lead me by your Word, the Bible, and your Holy Spirit that I may live for you. In Jesus Name. AMEN

This was from a tract published by the Church of God.

 

[Padrej]

@Nominefili

Your “aboslute assurance” language really came off as OSAS, sorry about that… You kind of creeped in right after we finished one good round discussing OSAS and peculiar view points on it. It’s for this reason usage of that language is completely out of favor with me, it’s loaded with meaning.

I would suggest this as a better interpretation if you really want to use “aboslute assurance”… I have aboslute assurance that God will keep his word to us, that if we follow his prcepts we will receive his saving grace which is the only thing (not faith/works) which can justify us.

Can you be on board with that?

I think that what I have highlighted is one of the most profound things you have written yet.

 

[brb3]

Paul WAS NOT one of the original 12.

Jesus only breathed on 10 of the 11 remaining in the upper room commanding them “receive the Holy Spirit” as Thomas was not there at that event. (John 20: 22-23)

Did I say Paul was one of original 12 ? :nope: I did say/imply he MET/SAW the risen Lord … which was an essential requirement for the first Apostles.

Thomas received the H.S. from Christ :yup: Same for Matthias … was he not identified as “a witness to Christ’s resurrection” … and chosen BEFORE Pentecost ? :yyeess:

 

[brb3]

I would have to agree with Padrej there were only eleven after Judas not twelve as you contend. Can you tell us the name of the 12th.

Matthias …

 

[crazzeto]

Matthias …

You have a very good point there, there will be 12 Apostles, judging the 12 tribes of Isreal and Judas isn’t going to be one of the 12 Judges. It will certianly be Matthias.

 

[Anna_Scott]

You have a very good point there, there will be 12 Apostles, judging the 12 tribes of Isreal and Judas isn’t going to be one of the 12 Judges. It will certianly be Matthias.

Funny, I was just writing about Matthias in another conversation. Peter facilitated the election of Matthias, according to God’s will, through the casting of lots (Acts 1:15-26.) Indeed, there will be 12 Apostles, judging the 12 Tribes of Israel. You don’t hear about this very often.

Anna

 

[FrJohnB]

Did I say Paul was one of original 12 ? I did say/imply he MET/SAW the risen Lord … which was an essential requirement for the first Apostles.

Thomas received the H.S. from Christ Same for Matthias … was he not identified as “a witness to Christ’s resurrection” … and chosen BEFORE Pentecost ?

Matthias …

OK where do you get that Matthias was identified as a witness to the resurrection? Granted you mentioned nothing in the original response regarding Paul being one of the 12 but you are quite frankly weasel wording around the fact that you were caught that Judas was one of the 12 but he lost that. Those comments were missing in your original response. There is no Biblical evidence that Matthias was a direct witness as Acts 1:22 states that the one chosen must BECOME a witness with us of the resurrection, in other words a person who witnesses to the fact of the resurrection. You original post said that these saw the Lord that verse does not indicate that Matthias directly say but only witness to the resurrection just like any other Christian would today.

Where is the evidence of Thomas WITNESSING the risen Christ OR even being part of the original 12? Granted he saw a vision while being stoned but how does that make him a direct eyewitness as you are proposing.

The best thing for you to have done, with all due respect, was to admit your error when called on it instead of digging yourself in deeper and looking foolish.

 

[FrJohnB]

You have a very good point there, there will be 12 Apostles, judging the 12 tribes of Isreal and Judas isn’t going to be one of the 12 Judges. It will certianly be Matthias.

I have no problem with the 12 judging, what I have a problem with is that it was implied and not directly answered. the original comment in question by Brb3

For Paul and the other 12, they lived in hope yes, but much more, a ‘blessed / living’ assurance. For them resurrection was a 100 % certitude … provided they persevered in their faith, which was also a 100% certitude.

Padrej was attempting to point out a place of contention that Brb3 failed to mention Judas in the comments. This comment is going totally ignored. The comment leaves the reader to conclude that Judas would have had the assurance of the resurrection/salvation etc. when he was not there any longer.

 

[Padrej]

Did I say Paul was one of original 12 ? :nope: I did say/imply he MET/SAW the risen Lord … which was an essential requirement for the first Apostles.

Thomas received the H.S. from Christ :yup: Same for Matthias … was he not identified as “a witness to Christ’s resurrection” … and chosen BEFORE Pentecost ? :yyeess:

As Fr John points out from Acts 1: 22 the requirement was that they would BECOME a witness of the resurrection. Today’s successors of the apostles, Popes and bishops all are under the requirement to BECOME a witness of the resurrection just as any person who would witness their faith would.

To FrJohnb, if Brb3 wants to keep avoiding the point of contention for some reason I am going to let him, it is not worth pointing out any longer as he clearly wants to avoid it.

 

[brb3]

Speaking of 12 and Paul who had WITNESSED & ‘talked to’ the risen Lord. Judas cashed in his chips/coins early, he made his deal with the temple crowd who rejected and crucified Christ.

Here is what I said. Examine closely. The 12 Apostles plus Paul … who ‘talked to’ the RISEN Lord.

Judas didn’t talk to the risen Lord, … he cashed in early. But, Matthias did, & Paul did.

Give it up FrJohn & Padre …

 

[mikeledes]

There is no absolute assurance of salvation. The Council of Trent states…

So also as regards the gift of perseverance, of which it is written, He that shall persevere to the end, he shall be saved:-which gift cannot be derived from any other but Him, who is able to establish him who standeth that he stand perseveringly, and to restore him who falleth:-let no one herein promise himself any thing as certain with an absolute certainty; though all ought to place and repose a most firm hope in God’s help.

The Bible clearly teaches that salvation can be lost. Consquently, since none of us know if we will commit a mortal sin, fall from grace, and die in that state, we cannot enjoy absolute assurance of entry into eternal glory. What we can have is a high level of assurance, but not absolute assurance.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[brb3]

There is no absolute assurance of salvation. The Council of Trent states…

So also as regards the gift of perseverance, of which it is written, He that shall persevere to the end, he shall be saved:-which gift cannot be derived from any other but Him, who is able to establish him who standeth that he stand perseveringly, and to restore him who falleth:-let no one herein promise himself any thing as certain with an absolute certainty; though all ought to place and repose a most firm hope in God’s help.

The Bible clearly teaches that salvation can be lost. Consquently, since none of us know if we will commit a mortal sin, fall from grace, and die in that state, we cannot enjoy absolute assurance of entry into eternal glory. What we can have is a high level of assurance, but not absolute assurance.

We are fallable, we ALL fall EVERY day … short of Glory of God. But, do we Catholics think Christ rejects us/accepts us on moment by moment basis … dependent upon our ‘state of mind’ ?

We do enjoy SALVATION ASSURANCE … although some may not recognize it. Our first Pope fell short … yet quickly repented and recovered. Or current pope appears to of made some errors in judgment on matters of morals … yet, we KNOW he too will repent and recover. God always gives opportunity to his election to repent and recover. We can have ABSOLUTE assurance that our Lord will ALWAYS recover those He has rebirthed … unless we deliberately chose to become Apostates, and chose not to confess error.

If a Catholic determines they will not forsake Christ, and repents on daily basis, they can have absolute assurance … that Christ will not reject them. Every day they can live with absolute assurance … that Christ will forgive their daily sins. Christ taught the final 12 & Paul, who receive his H.S. … that they were to have full assurance. They all prayed the Sinner’s Prayer, probably daily, and they lived in ABSOLUTE ASSURANCE that they would be reunited with Christ on their last day.

Should modern day disciples have any less assurance than the 12 and Paul ? Is the Council of Trent teaching we can’t have Absolute Assurance that Christ will reclaim his own ? NO & NO. Provided we do as the 12 & Paul, repenting daily … incorporating the Sinner’s Prayer [or some form thereof ] into our daily lives. Not as Judas, who turned away and did not pray the Sinner’s Prayer — and did not find restoration/salvation in Christ. He only needed to of gone to Calvary, and made full ‘public’ confession at foot of Cross. Christ would of forgiven him just as surely as he did the ‘good thief’.

We all have been a ‘judas’, a ‘thief’, or a ‘cowardly / scared’ Peter … at some point in our lives. That’s why we need the SINNER’S PRAYER as key part of our Salvation Soteriology … its the PERSEVERANCE that Christ taught/desires of disciples, on daily basis.

 

[FrJohnB]

Here is what I said. Examine closely. The 12 Apostles plus Paul … who ‘talked to’ the RISEN Lord.

Judas didn’t talk to the risen Lord, … he cashed in early. But, Matthias did, & Paul did.

Give it up FrJohn & Padre …

Please look at post 288
You original comment WAS

For Paul and the other 12, they lived in hope yes, but much more, a ‘blessed / living’ assurance. For them resurrection was a 100 % certitude … provided they persevered in their faith, which was also a 100% certitude.

How can you now deny what you have written in the first place which caused the post by Padrej and which you do not address? I see NOTHING in what I have highlighted that has ANYTHING close to what you are saying here. Are you now calling both Padrej and me liars?

To this I might add that church councils have said that we have NOTHING of 100% certainty. Are you now going against Catholic teachings also when it comes to assurance in salvation?

 

[FrJohnB]

We are fallable, we ALL fall EVERY day … short of Glory of God. But, do we Catholics think Christ rejects us/accepts us on moment by moment basis … dependent upon our ‘state of mind’ ?

We do enjoy SALVATION ASSURANCE … although some may not recognize it. Our first Pope fell short … yet quickly repented and recovered. Or current pope appears to of made some errors in judgment on matters of morals … yet, we KNOW he too will repent and recover. God always gives opportunity to his election to repent and recover. We can have ABSOLUTE assurance that our Lord will ALWAYS recover those He has rebirthed … unless we deliberately chose to become Apostates, and chose not to confess error.

If a Catholic determines they will not forsake Christ, and repents on daily basis, they can have absolute assurance … that Christ will not reject them. Every day they can live with absolute assurance … that Christ will forgive their daily sins. Christ taught the final 12 & Paul, who receive his H.S. … that they were to have full assurance. They all prayed the Sinner’s Prayer, probably daily, and they lived in ABSOLUTE ASSURANCE that they would be reunited with Christ on their last day.

Should modern day disciples have any less assurance than the 12 and Paul ? Is the Council of Trent teaching we can’t have Absolute Assurance that Christ will reclaim his own ? NO & NO. Provided we do as the 12 & Paul, repenting daily … incorporating the Sinner’s Prayer [or some form thereof ] into our daily lives. Not as Judas, who turned away and did not pray the Sinner’s Prayer — and did not find restoration/salvation in Christ. He only needed to of gone to Calvary, and made full ‘public’ confession at foot of Cross. Christ would of forgiven him just as surely as he did the ‘good thief’.

We all have been a ‘judas’, a ‘thief’, or a ‘cowardly / scared’ Peter … at some point in our lives. That’s why we need the SINNER’S PRAYER as key part of our Salvation Soteriology … its the PERSEVERANCE that Christ taught/desires of disciples, on daily basis.

So let me get this clear, you are saying in the highlighted above that a Catholic can live outside the church, hardly ever attend Mass so long as he/she repents or confesses to God on a daily basis. I am trying to get clarification here as this is what it sounds like you are saying. I have to agree with mikeledes in his comment that you could loose your salvation in this instance. Catholicism is an all or nothing faith, you either take everything but you cannot say, I do not agree with this part or tenant so I am not going to practice it and still claim to be a faithful Catholic. Granted salvation is a free gift to all, but just as with any other gift you CAN walk away from it.

 

[Padrej]

There is no absolute assurance of salvation. The Council of Trent states…

So also as regards the gift of perseverance, of which it is written, He that shall persevere to the end, he shall be saved:-which gift cannot be derived from any other but Him, who is able to establish him who standeth that he stand perseveringly, and to restore him who falleth:-let no one herein promise himself any thing as certain with an absolute certainty; though all ought to place and repose a most firm hope in God’s help.

The Bible clearly teaches that salvation can be lost. Consquently, since none of us know if we will commit a mortal sin, fall from grace, and die in that state, we cannot enjoy absolute assurance of entry into eternal glory. What we can have is a high level of assurance, but not absolute assurance.

God Bless,
Michael

There are many Protestants who teach that you CAN walk away from you salvation or “loose your salvation” and your comment says this beautifully. We can have a high level of assurance but we also need to remember that even the early apostles had doubts just as we do, that does not make them any less a part of the salvation plan. I do not agree with brb3 that you need to keep incorporating the sinner’s prayer unless you believe that when you sin you HAVE lost your salvation and need to invite Christ back in every time.

Take for example if your child disobeys it does not mean that you stopped loving them, it is just that the child temporarily went out of RELATIONSHIP because of the act of disobedience. It would not require you child to say, “mom and dad forgive be and I want you to start being my parent again.” This sounds ridiculous I know but it makes the point that you do not need to do the sinner’s prayer every time you sin because you are already in the relationship. This is why, in very simplistic terms, that the sinner’s prayer is NOT needed on a daily basis. Confession and repentance ARE needed on a daily basis as they put us back into the proper relationship with God.

 

[brb3]

Are you now calling both Padrej and me liars?

No… just equivocators. Most likely just making ‘mountain out of molehill’.

Lets :console: on the matter, and get back to the dialog. Next question …

 

[Padrej]

Please look at post 288
You original comment WAS

How can you now deny what you have written in the first place which caused the post by Padrej and which you do not address? I see NOTHING in what I have highlighted that has ANYTHING close to what you are saying here. Are you now calling both Padrej and me liars?

To this I might add that church councils have said that we have NOTHING of 100% certainty. Are you now going against Catholic teachings also when it comes to assurance in salvation?

Fr John, if Brb3 want to continue this let him, think on John 15: 20-21 and let him push us further into the Kingdom.

 

[JustaServant]

We are fallable, we ALL fall EVERY day … short of Glory of God. But, do we Catholics think Christ rejects us/accepts us on moment by moment basis … dependent upon our ‘state of mind’ ?

We do enjoy SALVATION ASSURANCE … although some may not recognize it. Our first Pope fell short … yet quickly repented and recovered. Or current pope appears to of made some errors in judgment on matters of morals … yet, we KNOW he too will repent and recover. God always gives opportunity to his election to repent and recover. We can have ABSOLUTE assurance that our Lord will ALWAYS recover those He has rebirthed … unless we deliberately chose to become Apostates, and chose not to confess error.

If a Catholic determines they will not forsake Christ, and repents on daily basis, they can have absolute assurance … that Christ will not reject them. Every day they can live with absolute assurance … that Christ will forgive their daily sins. Christ taught the final 12 & Paul, who receive his H.S. … that they were to have full assurance. They all prayed the Sinner’s Prayer, probably daily, and they lived in ABSOLUTE ASSURANCE that they would be reunited with Christ on their last day.

Should modern day disciples have any less assurance than the 12 and Paul ? Is the Council of Trent teaching we can’t have Absolute Assurance that Christ will reclaim his own ? NO & NO. Provided we do as the 12 & Paul, repenting daily … incorporating the Sinner’s Prayer [or some form thereof ] into our daily lives. Not as Judas, who turned away and did not pray the Sinner’s Prayer — and did not find restoration/salvation in Christ. He only needed to of gone to Calvary, and made full ‘public’ confession at foot of Cross. Christ would of forgiven him just as surely as he did the ‘good thief’.

We all have been a ‘judas’, a ‘thief’, or a ‘cowardly / scared’ Peter … at some point in our lives. That’s why we need the SINNER’S PRAYER as key part of our Salvation Soteriology … its the PERSEVERANCE that Christ taught/desires of disciples, on daily basis.

brb,
Catholics have a ‘sinner’s prayer’, it’s called the Act of Contrition:

O my God,
I am heartily sorry for
having offended Thee,
and I detest all my sins,
because I dread the loss of heaven,
and the pains of hell;
but most of all because
they offend Thee, my God,
Who are all good and
deserving of all my love.
I firmly resolve,
with the help of Thy grace,
to confess my sins,
to do penance,
and to amend my life.
Amen.

In all honesty brb, you continue to attempt to mix Catholic and Evangelical theology, and the two don’t mix. Doesn’t mean Evangelicals are all going to Hell, but their soteriology and ours are different, period. Your posts throughout CA show confusion because you are trying to keep your feet on both sides of the Tiber. And it can’t be done. At some point in time you are going to have make a choice.
The history of the ‘sinner’s prayer’ has been given (invented by Charles Finney), and has been shown to be rejected by most mainstream Protestant scholars. A good source would be Ian Murray, a Prebyterian theologion and writer who gave (in my opinion) the best arguments for debunking the ‘sinner’s prayer’. Why continue to try to convince Catholics of something even most Protestants reject?